He doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes. He just tries to find new ways to make the same mistakes over...

Quote:

Is Obama launching a new fall attack on Fox News?Last year at this time, President Obama and his top White House advisers were about to launch a disastrous campaign against Fox News.

I say disastrous because the acting communications director, Anita Dunn, who sounded the call to arms on Howard Kurtz's "Reliable Sources" show would resign within weeks, and the president and his innermost circle after going on every major non-Fox news show to attack the highest-rated cable news channel as "not really being a news channel," were in full retreat.

I was in the middle of it, a little lonely at first as one of the only mainstream journalists denouncing what the White House was up. I stressed the need for a free press -- independent from the reaches and power of any of the branches of government -- for democracy to be served.

It got nasty before journalists at other cable channels and networks who understood the principle stepped up and spoke out against an executive branch trying to bully and browbeat a competitor. ABC's Jake Tapper, then-CNN host Campbell Brown and NBC's Savannah Guthrie were among the cable and network newscasters who ultimately challenged the White House on what it was trying to do to Fox.

And now comes President Obama in a "Rolling Stone" interview citing the very point I made over and over while under attack from his operatives when he was asked by Jann Wenner about Fox News in a midterm-themed cover story in "Rolling Stone." And after he cites the Constitutional principle, he then goes back on the attack saying Fox News is "destructive" to the country.

Here we go again -- sort of. The president seems to have learned from the mistakes of last fall's campaign against Fox. But instead of using his newly gained wisdom to respect the role of a free press, he's using it to try to be more effective in his attack on Fox News. He's trying to plug the gaping hole in last year's rationale to better disguise his partisan intent.

UPDATE: 8 p.m. Check out this report of White House spokesperson praising MSNBC and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow if you don't think the White House is on the attack against Fox again just as it was last fall -- while shutting its eyes to MSNBC committing the same sins of bias of which it accuses Fox News. This sure looks like playing to the base to me. The White House spokesman says the president believes Olbermann provides an "invaluable service" to the country. He helps keep government "honest." And this, while the president is saying Fox News is "destructive" to the country.

According to TVNewser's account of the Rolling Stone interview, here's Obama's answer after Wenner asks him is he thinks Fox News is "is a good institution for America and for democracy."

(Talk about loaded, tee-'em-up, partisan, softball questions. If the publisher of "Rolling Stone" was so concerned about what institutions were good for democracy, he should have stepped up last fall when the executive branch of government was trying to crush one of the most popular news outlets in America. Anyway, here's Obama, and please note the laughter at the question about Fox and democracy indicated in the transcript of the exchange.)

Obama: “[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

I love it that Obama finally masters the first week's topic for Government and the Press 101, the part about the need for independent press, and now he's lecturing us on the History of the Press 499 like he knows what he is talking about.

That's fine, that's Obama, isn't it?

And I guess, it is even okay if Obama wants to say he believes Fox News has a point of view and that it's "ultimately destructive" for America. That is a pretty serious charge for the president of the United States to make against a media outlet. I wonder if Obama realizes that he carries the history and the weight of the presidency behind him when he say such things -- words that seem more suited to the slash-and-burn rhetoric of a politician on the campaign trail than the president of the United States.

But, after all, Fox News is winning with the viewer-voters of America, and Obama has been losing support for his party left and right. And nothing rallies the left, which is pretty disllusioned with Obama these days, like an attack on Fox -- especially on a week of more great ratings news and the release of a study that finds Fox a winner when voters are asked what news outlets are having a positive impact on American politics.

But you don't deny Fox News or any other news organization access to pool interviews with administration officials as was done last year or have your top aides go on Sunday morning public affairs shows and tell other journalists they should cut Fox News from the journalistic herd.

I have written this before, but it bears repeating: Outside of Richard Nixon, I have never seen a president with the profound contempt for the press that Obama has.

Say what you will about Fox News and the all the candidates on its payroll, and its parent company donating $1 million to the GOP, all journalists owe Roger Ailes & Co. a debt of gratitude for standing up to the White House last year and teaching this president a lesson about the press and government -- a lesson that you think he would have learned long ago being a professor of law.

That article is completely overblown. Find anywhere in there that he is looking to quash their freedom to "report" whatever they want to.

Fox New does have a "point of view." I would go much further and say that it is outright biased and does not report news, it is the ultimate in dramaticizing, to the point of being completely unprofessional. I have said many times that it should be called "Fox News Entertainment" because it isn't really a news channel.

That article is completely overblown. Find anywhere in there that he is looking to quash their freedom to "report" whatever they want to.

Why else would a president go on the attack against a news organization (twice) other than to discredit them and eliminate their voice from the debate? Why would former White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn send out a memo to Democrats to boycott Fox News?

Why doesn't Obama show this same disdain for MSNBC, which arguably has more radicalized viewpoints from people like Olbermann, Schulz and Maddow? Since when did their opinions become fact?

Could it be because they worship Obama?

Quote:

Fox New does have a "point of view." I would go much further and say that it is outright biased and does not report news, it is the ultimate in dramaticizing, to the point of being completely unprofessional. I have said many times that it should be called "Fox News Entertainment" because it isn't really a news channel.

Fox News has a news portion and has opinion shows.

During the news portion, hard news is reported.

During the opinion shows, such as O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck etc, opinions are given.

How is this ANY different than MSNBC with Olbermann, Maddow etc and CNN with Cafferty and Brown?

Answer: it is not.

All three cable organizations are owned by people with an ideological slant. All three organizations cover news stories during their news shows. All three organizations have opinion shows that slant one way or the other.

The only difference is that CNN and MSNBC lean to the left while Fox News leans to the right.

Wait.... I'm wrong. There is one more difference.

CNN and MSNBC will bring in several Democrat or Liberal voices to their segments with one or two token Republicans. But if you put on Fox and watch O'Reilly for example, he often brings on strongly opinionated liberals and Democrats such as Professor Marc Lamont Hill, who may be more liberal than any Democrat in Congress, Reverend Al Sharpton, Alan Colmes former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, just to name a few.

I've never heard anyone on CNN or MSNBC say something like "You have to feel like a complete idiot if you don't believe in immigration reform. However, I have heard a Fox News/Entertainment "reporter" (on a news program) say "You have to feel like a complete idiot if you still believe in climate change."

I would go much further and say that it is outright biased and does not report news, it is the ultimate in dramaticizing, to the point of being completely unprofessional. I have said many times that it should be called "Fox News Entertainment" because it isn't really a news channel.

By your definition, CBS Evening news isnt legitimate because Katie Couric has lectured us on several occasions for opposing the Obama agenda, adding drama and bias to what should be straight news. And MSNBC with Olberman, Maddow and Ed Schultz clearly should be called MSNBC Entertainment. And of course Chris Matthews is on that channel who said it is his job to make sure Obama succeeds, so considering NBC hired him I guess it is now just entertainment. And of course Brian Williams made headlines for his admiration of Obama, clear bias, so that isn't professional. Headline News, which I believe is part of CNN, has the Joy Behar show which had a clear agenda to destroy George Bush. Chalk up another one to unprofessional...

This game can be played both ways. You may not like the point of view of Fox, but you completely discredit your argument by just saying Fox is entertainment. If anything the majority of what they report during their news hours is about a week ahead of the curve with the non-cable networks. Try watching a Fox story with Brett Baier and then watch NBC or ABC a week later and you'll see Williams and Sawyer begrudgingly report the same story with less detail when it comes to the White House or Obama.

There is a reason Fox News and its opinion shows are absolutely destroying all other competition.

I've never heard anyone on CNN or MSNBC say something like "You have to feel like a complete idiot if you don't believe in immigration reform. However, I have heard a Fox News/Entertainment "reporter" (on a news program) say "You have to feel like a complete idiot if you still believe in climate change."

I've never heard anyone on CNN or MSNBC say something like "You have to feel like a complete idiot if you don't believe in immigration reform.

How is that any worse than some of the stuff people like Olbermann, Maddow and Schulz say? Have you actually watched Olbermann and the insults he hurls at people who disagree with him? The lies he spews on his show?

Here is an example for you of what the anchorman at MSNBC brings to the table:

"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States." - Keith Olbermann

Quote:

However, I have heard a Fox News/Entertainment "reporter" (on a news program) say "You have to feel like a complete idiot if you still believe in climate change."

Now that's what I call "good reporting."

Are you even sure it was a reporter? Fox has a lot of guests giving opinions on things.

I've never watched Olberman. While what he said isn't professional, attacking an individual on what could almost be construed as an issue (racist, homophobic, etc) is far different than calling an entire group of people with a belief (with scientific backing) a bunch of idiots.

And yes, I am positive it was a news show.

I don't pretend that FNE is the only media outlet with a slant. Why do you pretend they are a news outlet?

"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States." - Keith Olbermann

Thanks for the actual quote. I remember seeing that on election day and laughing as a I cast my ballot for Brown. For once Massachusetts didn't disappoint me.

I've never watched Olberman. While what he said isn't professional, attacking an individual on what could almost be construed as an issue (racist, homophobic, etc) is far different than calling an entire group of people with a belief (with scientific backing) a bunch of idiots.

So Olbermann personally attacking someone with accusations he has no proof of, out of thin air, can be construed as discussing an issue?

You must be joking.

And I guess you missed all the stories regarding the "scientists" that were backing the global warming (.... oh wait now it's climate change) theories and all of the data manipulation they engaged in over the years.

I've never watched Olberman. While what he said isn't professional, attacking an individual on what could almost be construed as an issue (racist, homophobic, etc) is far different than calling an entire group of people with a belief (with scientific backing) a bunch of idiots.

And yes, I am positive it was a news show.

I don't pretend that FNE is the only media outlet with a slant. Why do you pretend they are a news outlet?

Name anything they do that is "Fair and Balanced."

Name anything NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or CNBC has done that is either fair or balanced.

Do me a favor, watch from 6-7pm tomorrow night and tell me what you see Brett Baier report that is so blatantly non-news and I'll be happy to discuss further.

I've said it was a "news" show (with obviously a crew that doesn't have any idea of professional standards). Until you offer something of substance to prove me wrong, I can't take your argument seriously.

And again, attacking a group for a belief is far below professional journalism. Attacking an individual for statements, quotes and actions is quite a bit different. I hope you can see the difference.

Degs, buddy, your getting owned here pretty bad. It might be best to quit while your behind. You would have done better to admit that NO news agency in this country reports the news in an unbiased fashion anymore, and that your brand of politics (liberalism) is better covered by the reporting from 'X' network, and not by the contrasting right leaning views of Fox News. Honestly, there isn't a news agency in this country worth a crap, you simply choose which one spins the direction you like. Or in my case you go to several sources and read the spin from opposing sides. ;)

I've said it was a "news" show (with obviously a crew that doesn't have any idea of professional standards). Until you offer something of substance to prove me wrong, I can't take your argument seriously.

And again, attacking a group for a belief is far below professional journalism. Attacking an individual for statements, quotes and actions is quite a bit different. I hope you can see the difference.

Name the news show. If you are referring to the morning crew, well that is no different than Good Morning America. What you are doing is dangerous. You are throwing it out there that you've seen this yet you can't say who it was, which show, or how the comment was made. If they interviewed someone and that person answered a question with that response then you can't blame Fox.

Isn't Katie Couric scolding Tea Party people for opposing Obamacare an attack on a group of people in a slanted/biased manner? I thought CBS Evening News was not entertainment.

The other day they were talking about the Black Panthers meeting with the Iran president....Then turned it into Obama and the Black Panthers were in bed together.......

Typical Fox Spin....Obama had nothing to do with the story but they had to bring his name into it..

They never report real news without a spin

The morning crew is not purely a news show.

However, I can tell you why they are associating Obama with the Black Panthers.

Because the Black Panthers attempted to suppress voters through intimidation tactics during the 2008 election. The Department of Justice was bringing up charges but then Eric Holder decided to drop them... now the solicitor general is investigating the DOJ because their approach is that they only investigating voter suppression cases if it affects minorities, not the other way around.

This is Obama's Department of Justice choosing not to follow through on a clear violation of voter rights by the Black Panthers.

So there is some level of justification to the association.

And name one organization today that is reporting real news without spin consistently.

There isn't any. There hasn't been for a long time. So why should Fox News be the only one to earn the stigma?

I've said it was a "news" show (with obviously a crew that doesn't have any idea of professional standards). Until you offer something of substance to prove me wrong, I can't take your argument seriously.

And again, attacking a group for a belief is far below professional journalism. Attacking an individual for statements, quotes and actions is quite a bit different. I hope you can see the difference.

Name the news show. If you are referring to the morning crew, well that is no different than Good Morning America. What you are doing is dangerous. You are throwing it out there that you've seen this yet you can't say who it was, which show, or how the comment was made. If they interviewed someone and that person answered a question with that response then you can't blame Fox.

Isn't Katie Couric scolding Tea Party people for opposing Obamacare an attack on a group of people in a slanted/biased manner? I thought CBS Evening News was not entertainment.

I'll finish my participation in this off by saying that I agreed from the beginning that the others are biased, but NONE nearly as much as FNE. I watch FNE as I do look to get all the viewpoints, not just a liberal, as I'm not a liberal. (I generally have a liberal viewpoint on social issues, but I am about the most fiscally conservative person you have ever 'met.')

You can continue to open this thread up to 'force' me to defend everything you want including all the things I never said. It'll help you 'win' the 'argument' as I won't even pretend to keep up with it anymore.

There is no winning of the argument. Your opinion is that Fox in its entirety is slanted entertainment. Mine is that it has legit news shows along with slanted opinion shows. You can't define a network by 2 or 3 shows on it. You made a statement and got called on it. You couldn't prove it. Doesn't mean I'm walking tall because I think I won. End of story.

Why dont these networks just admit that they have an agenda?? MSNBC is as far left as FOX is far right. Look , they have a right to be but at least stop pretending. I mean usually at least in the mornings you can get some lighthearted looks at the news but FOX has those 3 robots on in the morning (fox & friends .. lol) just setting the stage why Obama sucks & they even have a conservative comedy thing with red eye. MSNBC with Olberman & Maddow , c'mon dont take us for fools when you defend Reid & Pelosi. Hannity , Beck , Oreilly ... I mean really! I think all these networks want to do is influence voters.Just give me the news.The only thing fair & balanced is my opinions on the Dolphins ... & I approved that message!!!!!!!!!!

Why dont these networks just admit that they have an agenda?? MSNBC is as far left as FOX is far right. Look , they have a right to be but at least stop pretending. I mean usually at least in the mornings you can get some lighthearted looks at the news but FOX has those 3 robots on in the morning (fox & friends .. lol) just setting the stage why Obama sucks & they even have a conservative comedy thing with red eye. MSNBC with Olberman & Maddow , c'mon dont take us for fools when you defend Reid & Pelosi. Hannity , Beck , Oreilly ... I mean really! I think all these networks want to do is influence voters.Just give me the news.The only thing fair & balanced is my opinions on the Dolphins ... & I approved that message!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I think O'Reilly is a fair guy. He brings liberal guests to his show frequently. He has never been disrespectful of Obama. I think he has been a true journalist. He gives his opinion yes, but he doesn't necessarily dismiss the opposing view. He just needs to stop talking over people so much.

I'm hesitant to put O'Reilly in the same category as Beck (who is a certifiable nutjob) and Hannity (who seems to get his talking points from the Republican Party).

I have a lot of respect for O'Reilly. I could do without Hannity and Beck.

I think O'Reilly is very good at making sure his show stays number 1 in the ratings. He does his best to come across center/right to the audience, but it sometimes appears that its just a trick to get his guests to elaborate on or defend their positions (left or right). It makes for much better discussion and debate. He definitely lays it on thick when appearing on late night talk shows or that spat on the View. It really is to attract more attention to his show and I think it gets people hooked when they see he is not as blatant as he may have appeared.

Hannity doesn't disguise who he roots for, but I don't find him capable of challenging opposing views that well unless its strongly in his favor. He just sort of repeats the same points over and over again and can be over matched. It is entertaining.

The contributor who blows everyone away is Charles Krauthammer. Talk about an intelligent and eloquent guy. Even if you disagree with him you have to respect how he formulates and defends his positions. He also is the only guest I've ever seen who O'Reilly will not talk over or interrupt. You can tell Krauthammer won't stand for it.

The contributor who blows everyone away is Charles Krauthammer. Talk about an intelligent and eloquent guy. Even if you disagree with him you have to respect how he formulates and defends his positions. He also is the only guest I've ever seen who O'Reilly will not talk over or interrupt. You can tell Krauthammer won't stand for it.

Has any president in the last 50 years been less presidential than Obama in his comments? "Punish your enemies" when referring to casting votes. Saying Republicans have to sit in the back when using his tired car in a ditch metaphor? Yeah, that sounds like a guy willing to work with everyone to find solutions. Ending his radio address to get people to vote with "remember, I inherited this crisis," after being in office for 2 years. Lets not forget the who's a** do I have to kick remark in his interview during the oil spill.